WATTERS,  J.  H.,  A.B.  An  Essay  on  Organic,  or  Life 
Force.  Written  For  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Medicine 
in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia:  1851. 
Svo,  pp.  23,  removed.  Title  si.  dusty.  $7.50 

**  "An  Essay  on  Muscular  Action  and  Its  Conditions., 
by  J.  H.  Watters,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Physiology  in 
the  St.  Louis  Medical  College."  (caption  to 
opening  chapter. ) 


AN  ESSAY 


ON 


ORGANIC,  OR  LIFE  FORCE. 


WRITTEN  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  MEDICINE  IN 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 


BY 

J.  H.  WATTERS,  A.  B. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
LIPPINCOTT,  CRAMBO  AND  CO., 

SUCCESSORS  TO  GRIGG,  ELLIOT  AND  CO. 

1851. 


PHILADELPHIA.  ! 

T-  K.  AND  P.  G.  COLLINS,  PRINTERS. 


AN  ESSAY 


0 N 


THE  NINTH  OF  A SERIES  OF  ARTICLES  PUBLISHED  IN  THE 
ST.  LOUIS  MEDICAL  JOURNAL, 

O N 

“LIFE,” 


B Y 


J.  H.  WATTERS,  M.D.  , 

PROFESSOR  OF  PHYSIOLOGY  IN  THE  ST.  LOUIS  MEDICAL  COLLEGE. 


No.  IX — Muscular  Action  and  its  Conditions. — We  have 
already  considered  the  fact  that  Life  and  Decay  are  propor- 
tional, and  have  applied  the  theory  that  the  speciality  of  action 
in  a living  organism  is  due  to  speciality  of  adjustment,  and  that 
the  vital  actions  are  reciprocal  with  oxydation,  to  the  pheno- 
mena of  reproduction,  nutrition,  secretion,  and  of  “dormant 
vitality.”  And  I think  it  has  been  shown  that  these  pheno- 
mena go  far  to  establish  the  theory.  We  have  not  neglected, 
moreover,  to  direct  attention  to  the  established  fact  that  as 
the  conditions  of  oxydation  are  increased  or  diminished  with- 
in certain  limits,  vital  action  is  increased  or  diminished  ac- 
cordingly, and  to  show  the  bearing  of  all  this  class  of  facts 
upon  the  question  at  issue.  I wish  now  to  direct  attention 
to  the  facts  connected  with  muscular  action,  in  reference  to 
the  same  point.  To  this  effect,  I shall  attempt  to  establish, 
1st.  That  muscular  action  is  necessitated,  and  is  definite  and 
determined  according  to  fixed  laws ; 2d.  That  the  cause  of 
the  speciality  of  action  is  adjustment;  Bd.  That  the  cause  of 
1 


— 2 — 


action  is  neither  the  “nervous  influence”  nor  the  inherent 
property  of  the  muscular  tissue,  but  that  muscular  action  is  re- 
ciprocal with  the  oxydation  of  the  muscle  itself ; 4 th.  That  the 
nervous  system  is  an  arrangement  of  nature  by  which  this 
oxydation  is  placed  under  the  control  of  certain  conditions  ; 
and  hence,  by  which  muscular  contraction  is  placed  under 
the  control  of  these  conditions.  This  article  will  be  devoted 
to  the  facts  bearing  upon  these  points.  True,  I do  not  expect 
to  demonstrate  these  propositions,  but  I expect  to  show  so 
strong  a probability  in  their  favor,  that  when  this  probability 
is  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  preceding  induction — with 
the  a priori  presumption — it  will  amount  to  a demonstration 
of  the  original  proposition. 

First,  then — Muscular  action  is  necessitated,  and  is  dejinite 
and  determined  according  to  fixed  laws.  It  is  scarcely  neces- 
sary to  insist  upon  this  proposition,  as  few  if  any  will  question 
it.  It  is  sufficiently  established  by  the  ordinary  rhythmical 
movements  of  the  heart  and  the  peristaltic  action  of  the  intes- 
tines, but  it  is  no  less  established  by  experiments  upon  the 
voluntary  muscles;  for,  these  muscles  may  be  made  to  act  by 
mechanical  and  chemical  agency,  and  by  electricity,  at  plea- 
sure. The  truth  of  this  proposition  renders  muscular  action 
a subject  of  stud}',  in  ascertaining  its  laws  and  physical  con- 
ditions. 

Second — The  cause  of  speciality  of  action  is  adjustment.  The 
truth  of  this  proposition,  I contend,  follows  directly  from  the 
first;  for,  if  the  action  is  necessitated,  the  condition  ol  its  act- 
ing necessarily  in  this  way  rather  than  in  some  other  way, 
must  be  adjustment.  But  some  one  may  object  that  the  spe- 
ciality may  be  due  to  a special  property  of  the  muscular  tissue. 
This  is  clearly  a petitio  principii.  Upon  what  does  this  special 
property  depend,  or  what  meaning  do  you  attach  to  “special 
property”  after  having  admitted  necessity,  if  you  do  not  mean 
a special  physical  condition  in  distinction  from  some  other  phy- 
sical condition  ? If  it  were  not  for  the  truth  of  the  two  fore- 
going propositions,  the  conditions  and  law's  of  muscular  action 
would  not  be  a subject  of  study. 

Third — The  cause  of  muscular  action  is  neither  the  “ nervous 
influence nor  the  inherent  property  of  the  muscular  tissue  ; but 


— 3 


muscular  action  is  reciprocal  with  the  oxydalion  of  the  muscular 
tissue  itself.  Here  the  distinction  is  clearly  drawn  between 
the  condition  of  the  speciality  of  action,  and  the  condition  of 
action.  This  distinction  is  the  central  idea  of  all  that  is  pecu- 
liar in  this  series  of  articles  upon  the  subject  of  “Life.”  The 
wTant  of  this  distinction  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  correlation 
hypothesis;  when  a special  action  is  observed,  they  infer  a 
special  force  rather  than  a special  adjustment.  It  is  true,  we 
are  accustomed  to  assume  absolute  force  as  a starting  point 
wherever  we  are  unable  or  unwilling  to  trace  antecedents 
farther,  and  hence  so  many  forces  or  modifications  of  force, 
rather  than  modifications  of  adjustment.  But  I have  attempt- 
ed to  show  that  we  are  unwarranted  in  this,  both  by  reason 
and  fact ; and  that  antecedent  action  or  dis-equilibrium  rather 
than  force  is  our  starting  point  in  studying  phenomena  ; and 
that  reciprocal  action  is  the  law,  and  special  adjustments  the 
condition,  of  modifications  of  action.  We  will  now  consider 
separately  the  points  of  this  third  proposition. 

(a)  The  cause  of  muscular  action  is  not  nervous  influence. 
It  is  a fact  that  in  the  animal  organism,  the  nervous  system 
afford?  a condition  of  muscular  action.  From  this  fact,  it  has 
been  inferred  that  the  nervous  S3rstem  affords  the  cause.  This 
inference  is  an  hypothesis,  because  it  is  not  supported  by 
premises.  A condition  is  not  necessarily  a cause.  Air  is  a 
condition,  and  a necessary  condition,  of  a bird’s  flying,  but  it  is 
not  the  cause.  Facts  obtained  by  experiment  establish  that 
the  nervous  system  furnishes  only  a condition,  and  not  the 
cause  of  muscular  action.  Among  these  is  the  fact  that  the 
regular  rhythmical  movements  of  the  heart  may  continue  after 
all  connection  with  the  spinal  centres -is  destroyed.  But  it 
may  be,  and  has  been,  said,  that  centres  of  the  sympathetic 
nerve,  located  in  the  substance  of  the  heart  itself,  supply  the 
cause.  But  this  is  merely  guess-work  for  which  there  is  no  foun- 
dation. For,  if  the  voluntary  muscles  be  separated  from  their 
nervous  connection  with  the  spinal  centres,  they  will  contract 
under  the  influence  of  the  point  of  a scalpel  applied  to  the 
nerve  trunk.  Now,  the  point  of  the  scalpel  is  a condition 
but  not  the  cause  of  muscular  contraction  ; and  as  the  scalpel 
substitutes  the  spinal  centres,  the  spinal  centres  are  a condi- 


— 4 — 


tion  but  not  a cause.  Hence,  admitting  the  centres  of  the 
sympathetic  in  the  substance  of  the  heart,  these  centres  may 
be  a condition,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  they  are  the 
cause  of  the  heart’s  action.  Moreover,  separate  muscular 
fibres  will  contract  under  certain  physical  conditions.  All 
these  facts  go  to  establish  that  the  cause  of  muscular  action  is 
not  nervous  influence. 

(b)  The  cause  of  muscular  action  is  not  an  inherent  property 
of  the  muscular  tissue.  “Thousand  to  one,  the  goal  of  your 
philosophy  will  be  the  spot  where  you  become  weary  of  think- 
ing any  further.”  The  truth  of  this  remark  is  nowhere  bet- 
ter illustrated  than  in  the  result  upon  the  philosophy  of  mus- 
cular action,  following  the  establishment  of  the  fact  that  this 
action  is  not  caused  by  nervous  influence.  This  goal  of  philo- 
sophy is  always  indicated  by  the  assumption  of  absolute  force 
as  the  proximate  cause  of  phenomena.  It  is  no  more  indi- 
cated by  the  phrase  “nature  abhors  a vacuum”  than  by  the 
terms  “ attraction,”  “ affinity,”  &c. ; and  no  more  by  these  than 
by  the  terms  “irritability,”  “excitability,”  “contractility,” 
&c.  No  sooner  is  the  independence  of  muscular  action  of 
the  nervous  centres  established,  than  the  phenomenon  is  ex- 
plained by  the  assumption  that  contractility  is  a property 
which  the  muscle  possesses  in  and  by  itself.  This  “contrac- 
tility” is  an  assumed  cause  or  absolute  power,  inherent  in  the 
muscular  fibre.  This  is  the  manner  Dr.  Carpenter  explains 
muscular  action,  and  I will  make  a few  quotations  to  show 
clearly  his  position.  Having  considered  the  objections  to  the 
doctrine,  that  muscular  action  is  caused  by  nervous  influence, 
he  continues  : “ When  all  these  considerations  are  allowed 
their  due  weight,  we  can  scarcely  do  otherwise  than  acquiesce 
fully  in  the  doctrine  of  Haller,  which  involves  no  hypothesis, 
and  which  is  perfectly  conformable  to  the  analogy  of  other  de- 
partments of  physiology.  He  regarded  every  part  of  the 
body  which  is  endowed  with  irritability,  as  possessing  that 
property  in  and  by  itself;  but  considered  that  the  property  is 
subjected  to  excitement  and  control  from  the  nervous  system, 
the  agency  of  which  is  one  of  the  stimuli  that  can  call  it  into 
operation .”*  Call  a property  into  operation  ! Does  this  “ in- 


* Human  Phys.  § 327.  Last  Am.  Ed. 


5 — 


volve  no  hypothesis?”  It  may  be  “perfectly  conformable” 
to  Dr.  Carpenter’s  philosophy,  and  it  is  “ perfectly  conform- 
able to  the  analogy  of  other  departments  of  physiology”  and 
physics,  to  assume  absolute  force  as  the  proximate  cause,  at 
the  spot  where  the  mind  becomes  weary  of  thinking  any  fur- 
ther. But  does  this  involve  no  hypothesis  ? The  Doctor  will 
take  “ what  is  held”  as  his  starting  point.  Again,  having  con- 
sidered the  various  doctrines  which  refer  the  movements  of 
the  heart  to  the  nervous  system,  he  says:  “A  more  satisfac- 
tory mode  of  accounting  for  the  rhythmical  movements  of  the 
heart,  appears  to  the  author  to  lie  in  regarding  them  as  an 
expression  of  the  peculiar  vital  endowments  of  its  muscular  tis- 
sue ; and  to  believe  that,  so  long  as  this  tissue  retains  its  integ- 
rity, and  the  other  necessary  conditions  are  supplied,  so  long 
is  an  alternation  of  contraction  and  relaxation  the  charac- 
teristic and  constant  manifestation  of  its  vital  activity— just 
as  ciliary  movement  is  in  cells  of  one  class,  and  secreting  action 
in  those  of  another.  The  fact  that  this  movement  is  seen  to 
commence  in  the  embryo  heart,  when  as  yet  its  parieties  con- 
sist of  ordinary  cells,  and  no  nervous  structure  exists  either  in 
its  own  substance  or  in  the  body  at  large,  is  an  important  con- 
firmation of  this  doctrine  ; whilst  the  same  fact  stands  in  com- 
plete opposition  to  the  idea,  that  the  nervous  force  is  in  any 
way  concerned  in  maintaining  this  rhythmical  action.  But,  it 
may  be  said,  that  in  attributing  to  the  muscular  structure  of 
the  heart  a self-moving  power,  we  really  only  throw  back 
the  question  into  the  obscurity  from  which  the  physiologist 
has  sought  to  draw  it.  Such  is  far  from  being  the  case,  how- 
ever, if  it  can  be  shown  that  this  self-moving  power  is  nothing 
else  than  an  exertion  of  ordinary  muscular  contractility  under 
peculiar  conditions,  and  if  analogous  phenomena  can  be 
shown  to  present  themselves  elsewhere.”*  It  is  perfectly 
clear  from  these  quotations,  that  Dr.  Carpenter  considers  the 
doctrine,  that  muscular  action  is  due  to  contractility  which 
the  muscle  possesses  as  a property  in  and  by  itself,  the  only 
alternative  after  it  is  established  that  it  is  not  due  to  nervous 


-Human  Pbjs.  g 49S.  Last  Am.  Ed. 


— 6 — 


influence.  We  will  now  analyze  this  doctrine  and  compare 
it  with  facts,  that  its  merits,  if  it  have  any,  may  be  seen  ; re- 
membering that  the  only  evidence  adduced  in  its  favor  is  the 
evidence  against  the  doctrine  that  muscular  action  is  due  to 
nervous  influence  ; this  doctrine  being  disproved  bjr  facts,  the 
doctrine  we  are  now  considering  has  been  assumed  as  the 
necessary  alternative.  It  rests,  therefore,  entirely  upon  this 
negative  evidence. 

“ When  all  these  considerations  are  allowed  their  due 
weight,  we  can  scarcely  do  otherwise  than  acquiesce  fully  in 
the  doctrine  of  Haller.  * * * * He  regarded 

every  part  of  the  body  which  is  eiidowed  with  irritability,  as 
possessing  that  property  in  and  by  itself.”  To  get  a clear 
idea  of  this  doctrine,  we  must  analyze  the  terms  “irritability” 
and  “ property,”  and  see  what  they  really  mean. 

It  is  a fact  of  observation,  that  parts  of  the  body,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  perform  certain  actions.  The  susceptibility 
of  these  actions  under  proper  conditions,  has  received  the  gen- 
eral expression,  “ irritability .”  A ■property , in  science,  means 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  a quality  or  attribute  inseparable 
from  its  subject,  which  cannot  be  increased  or  diminished,  or 
in  any  way  changed,  without  a corresponding  change  of  the 
subject.  Hence,  it  involves  no  hypothesis  to  sa}’,  that  every 
part  of  the  body  which  is  endowed  with  a susceptibility  of  ac- 
tion, possesses  this  as  a property  in  and  by  itself.  This  is 
merely  a general  expression  of  the  fact.  But  when  “ irrita- 
bility” is  advanced  as  the  reason  why  a muscle  contracts,  the 
spot  is  at  once  recognized,  “ where  you  become  weary  of  think- 
ing any  further.”  You  have  arrived  at  the  goal  of  your  phi- 
losophy. Here  is  hypothesis,  and  nothing  but  hypothesis. 
The  term  irritability  is  sophistically  endowed  with  a trans- 
ferred meaning  from  that  of  susceptibility  of  action,  which  in- 
volves no  hypothesis,  to  that  of  cause  of  action,  which  is  all 
hypothesis.  Now,  Dr.  Carpenter  uses  the  terms  irritability, 
contractility , motility , &c.,  in  this  sophistical,  transferred 
sense,  and  it  is  to  this  I object.  I expect  to  show  that  the 
cause  of  muscular  action  is  not  a property  which  the  muscles 
possess  in  and  by  themselves.  By  the  term  “ cause,”  is  not 
meant  the  ultimate  cause,  nor  the  yet  final  cause,  with  which 


— 7 — 


the  physical  sciences  have  nothing  to  do,  but  the  proximate 
cause  or  immediate  antecedent  with  which  the  action  is  re- 
ciprocal as  the  effect. 

Now,  with  clear  ideas  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  “ prop- 
erty,” “ cause”  and  “irritability;”  having  determined  that  the 
cause  of  muscular  action  is  not  derived  from  the  nervous  sys- 
tem, let  us  consider  the  doctrine  that  the  cause  is  a property 
which  the  muscle  possesses  in  and  by  itself,  with  the  facts  in 
the  case.  It  is  a fact  of  observation,  that  in  the  animal  eco- 
nomy muscular  contraction  is  followed  by  relaxation  ; this 
whole  rhythm  must  be  taken  into  the  account.  Your  theory 
of  muscular  action  must  embrace  not  only  the  contraction, 
but  the  relaxation  also.  If  the  contraction  be  due  to  the  pro- 
perty of  “ motility,”  what  becomes  of  this  property  in  relaxa- 
tion ? Dr.  Carpenter,  continues, — “the  property  is  subjected 
to  excitement  and  control  from  the  nervous  system,  the  agency 
of  which  is  one  of  the  stimuli  that  can  call  it  into  operation. ” 
This  is  the  manner  he  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  property 
(according  to  his  hypothesis)  is  not  all  the  time  in  operation. 
In  regard  to  the  rhythmical  movements  of  the  heart,  he  says  : 
“Now  just  as  the  Leyden  jar  may  be  so  charged  with  electri- 
city as  to  discharge  itself  spontaneously,  so  it  is  easy  to  con- 
ceive that  the  muscle  may  be  so  charged  with  motility  (or  mo- 
tor force)  as  to  excite  spontaneous  contractions.”*  Again, 
“It  is  not  very  difficult,  then,  to  conceive,  that  the  ordinary 
rhythmical  movements  of  the  heart  may  be  due  to  a simple 
excess  of  this  motility,  which  is  continually  being  supplied  by 
the  nutritive  operations,  and  as  continually  discharging  itself 
in  contractile  action. ”f  Let  us  put  this  and  that  together. 
The  force  or  proximate  cause  of  muscular  contraction  is  a 
property  which  the  muscle  possesses  in  and  by  itself ; this  force 
and  this  property  is  subjected  to  excitement  and  control  from 
the  nervous  system;  the  muscle  is  supplied  or  charged  with 
this  motility,  this  force,  this  property,  as  the  Ley'den  jar  is 
charged  rvith  electricity  ; and  as  the  Leyden  jar  is  discharged, 
the  muscle  is  discharged  of  this  motility — this  property,  in 
contractile  action.  I claim  that  all  this  is  contrary  to  first 


® Human  Phys.  § 499. 


t Ibid. 


— 8 — 


principles.  Neither  a force  nor  & property  is  subject  to  excite- 
ment ; nor  can  any  substance  be  charged  with  r>r  discharged 
of  a property.  A property  has  no  existence  independently  of 
the  concrete  subject,  nor  can  a property  be  added  to  or  sepa- 
rated from  its  subject.  I consider  these  propositions  self-evi- 
dent, and  therefore  need  not  dwell  upon  this  point.  If  they 
are  true,  Dr.  Carpenter’s  doctrine  is  simply  absurd.  Would 
he  contend,  that  the  electricity  with  which  the  Leyden  jar  is 
charged,  is  a property  which  the  Leyden  jar  possesses  in  and 
by  itsell  ? If  “motility”  can  be  “ excited”  or  “discharged,” 
it  cannot  be  a property  which  the  muscle  possesses  in  and  by 
itself ; and  conversely',  if  it  be  a property,  it  cannot  be  excited 
or  discharged.  A few  words  now  in  reference  to  this  method 
of  explanation. 

Dr.  Carpenter  says  : “ But  it  may  be  said,  that  in  attributing 
to  the  muscular  structure  of  the  heart  a self-moving  power, 
we  really  only  throw  back  the  question  into  the  obscurity 
from  which  the  Physiologist  has  sought  to  draw  it.  Such  is 
far  from  being  the  case,  however,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  this 
self-moving  power  is  nothing  else  than  an  exertion  of  ordinary 
contractility  under  peculiar  conditions,  and  if  analogous  phe- 
nomena can  be  shown  to  present  themselves  elsewhere.”  I 
am  at  a loss  to  see  how  this  objection  is  removed  by  showing 
that  the  self-moving  power  claimed  for  the  heart  is  nothing 
else  than  the  exertion  of  ordinary  contractility.  This  is  the 
method  adopted; — true,  to  say  the  motions  of  the  heart  are 
due  to  its  self-moving  power,  is  no  explanation;  and  true,  to 
say  the  same  of  any  one  muscle  in  the  body,  is  no  explana- 
tion, but  throws  back  the  question  into  the  original  obscu- 
rity ; but  here  I will  generalize,  and  give  a general  expression 
to  this  self-moving  power,  under  the  name  of  “ contractility if 
I now  refer  the  motions  of  the  heart  to  this  general  expres- 
sion, ‘ contractility ,’  lam  far  from  throwing  the  question  back 
into  its  original  obscurity.  Sublime  philosophy  ! beautiful 
method  of  explanation  ! It  is  quite  a refinement  of  the  old 
method  of  explanation  by  ‘occult  properties  ?’  It  is  no  ex- 
planation to  say  that  opium  produces  sleep  on  account  of  an 
occult  quality  which  disposes  it  to  produce  sleep;  nor  is  it  any 
explanation  of  muscular  action  to  say  it  is  due  to  occult  pro- 


— 9 — 


perty,  ‘ contractility which  disposes  the  muscle  to  contract. 
Now,  if  muscular  action  in  general  is  not  explained  by  this 
occult  quality,  it  is  an  accommodating  philosophy  which  would 
explain  the  actions  of  a particular  muscle  by  it.  To  explain 
any  phenomenon  of  nature,  we  must  establish  a proximate 
cause  more  general  than  the  class  of  phenomena  to  be  explain- 
ed. For  instance,  we  explain  the  motion  of  a watch  when 
we  refer  it  to  the  recoiling  of  the  spring,  because  the  recoil- 
ing of  the  spring  is  more  general  than  this  class  of  actions  ; 
that  is,  the  motion  of  the  watch  does  not  exist  independently 
of  the  spring,  but  the  recoiling  of  the  spring  may  exist  inde- 
pendently of  the  watch  ; but  it  is  no  explanation  of  the  recoil- 
ing of  the  spring  to  refer  it  to  ‘ elasticity,’  because  elasticity 
is  not  more  general  than  elastic  bodies;  that  is,  1 elasticity’  is 
but  a general  expression  of  the  fact,  and  can  only  be  equally 
general  with  that  class  of  facts.  The  pressure  of  the  atmos- 
phere is  an  explanation  of  the  rise  of  a liquid  in  a tube  from 
which  the  air  is  exhausted,  but  ‘ gravitation’  is  no  explana- 
tion of  the  atmospheric  pressure,  more  than  ‘ chemical  affin- 
ity’ is  an  explanation  of  chemical  action,  or  than  ! irritability,’ 
‘contractility,’  or  ‘motility,’  is  an  explanation  of  muscular 
action.  These  are  not  proximate  causes,  but  further  than 
they  express  the  generalized  facts,  they  are  but  flights  of  the 
imagination  indicating  the  ‘ spot  when  we  become  weary  of 
thinking  any  further.’  When  the  anchor  of  reason  is  weighed 
at  this  spot  and  free  sail  given  to  the  imagination,  it  seems 
allowable  to  assume  anything  and  every  thing ; hence,  Dr. 
Carpenter  talks  about  ‘irritability  which  the  muscle  possesses 
as  a property  in  and  by  itself,’  being  ‘ stimulated  into  active 
operation ,’  and  about  the  ‘ property  of  motility’  ‘ discharging 
itself  in  contractile  action.’  Now,  if  muscular  action  is  not 
due  to  nervous  influence,  nor  to  an  occult  quality  of  ‘contrac- 
tility,’ what  is  the  proximate  cause? 

(c)  Muscular  action  is  reciprocal  with  oxyclation  of  the  muscu- 
lar tissue  itself.  If  it  is  required  of  me  to  establish  this  proposi- 
tion by  direct  argument,  more  is  required  than  I shall  under- 
take, and  than  entered  into  my  original  plan.  A process  of 
inductive  reasoning  resulted  in  the  general  proposition,  that 
vital  action  is  reciprocal  with  oxydation.  If  an  explanation  of 


— 10 


the  phenomena  of  muscular  action  can  be  deduced  from  this, 
the  general  proposition  is  confirmed.  Hence,  my  object  now 
is  not  directly  to  establish  the  particular  proposition  that  mus- 
cular action  is  reciprocal  with  oxydation,  but  I am  now  occu- 
pied with  the  indirect  part  of  the  argument  to  establish  the 
general  proposition,  that  vital  action  is  reciprocal  with  oxyda- 
tion. 1 have  shown  that  existing  theories  do  not  explain  the 
phenomena  of  muscular  action.  I expect  now  to  show  that 
these  phenomena  may  be  explained  by  the  theory  that  muscu- 
lar action  is  reciprocal  with  oxydation,  and  that  the  facts  con- 
nected with  the  subject  are  consistent  with  this  view.  We  are 
now  concerned  with  the  indirect  part  of  the  general  argument 
to  establish  the  general  proposition  ; and  if  the  general  propo- 
sition is  established,  the  particular  is  included.  Hence,  the 
point  at  issue  in  the  present  article  is  not  whether  muscular 
action  is  reciprocal  with  oxydation  ; but  whether,  upon  the 
supposition  that  muscular  action  is  reciprocal  with  oxydation, 
can  an  explanation  of  the  facts  be  deduced?  If  the  facts  will 
justify  us  in  referring  this  action  to  chemical  changes  in  the 
muscular  tissue,  this  will  be  an  explanation,  because  chemical 
change  is  antecedent  to  mechanical  power  independently  of 
the  particular  arrangement  in  the  muscular  and  nervous  sys- 
tems. For  instance,  the  power  of  a steam  engine  and  of  a 
galvanic  battery  is  referred  to  chemical  action  as  its  antece- 
dent. And  I imagine  it  about  as  philosophical  to  say  that  as 
a steam  engine  discharges  itself  of  its  motility,  which  it  pos- 
sesses as  a property  in  and  by  itself,  in  mechanical  action,  the 
wood  under  the  boiler,  no  longer  protected  from  chemical 
forces, — its  protection  being  metamorphosed  into  gross  palpa- 
ble motion, — proportionally  oxydizes  ; as  to  say,  that  as  the  pro- 
perty of  motility  which  the  muscle  possesses  in  and  by  itself, 
discharges  itself  in  contractile  action  or  is  metamorphosed 
into  motion,  the  tissue  being  no  longer  protected  from  the  in- 
fluence of  chemical  forces,  disintegration  in  proportion  is  a 
consequence.  I am  inclined  to  doubt  the  propriety  of  laying 
aside,  as  of  no  use,  ideas  derived  from  physical  phenomena  in 
general  when  we  come  to  consider  the  phenomena  of  living 
beings ; — 

“Well  nigh  the  shore,  where  one  stoops  down  and  gathers 

Some  pretty  shell,  is  best  for  moderate  bathers.” 


— 11  — 


To  consider  the  “ nervous  system  as  one  of  the  stimuli  that 
can  call  into  operation ” the  irritability  or  motilit}r  of  a muscle, 
seems  to  me  to  involve  quite  as  much  hypothesis  as  to  say 
that  the  poles  of  a battery  or  the  oxydizing  fluid  are  stimuli 
that  can  call  the  motility  of  machinery  into  operation, — mo- 
tility which  the  machinery  possesses  as  a property  in  and  by 
itself.  In  the  works  of  art,  when  useful  objects  are  accom- 
plished by  means  of  machinery  not  guided  by  intelligence  di- 
rectly, the  distinction  is  always  to  be  drawn  between  the  cause 
of  the  specialty  of  action  or  the  machinery,  and  the  cause  of 
action  or  the  motor.  Does  it  seem  to  you  altogether  self- 
evident  that  this  distinction  does  not  extend  just  a little  far- 
ther than  man  is  capable  of  adapting  means  to  ends?  May 
not  the  distinction  be  carried  out  even  in  the  works  of  nature 
where  the  adaptation  of  means  to  ends  had  its  origin  in  the 
Divine  conception?  Referring  to  the  previous  articles  for 
the  direct  arguments  which  have  led  me  to  believe  that  these 
principles  obtain  in  living  beings, — that  all  vital  action  has 
oxydation  for  its  antecedent  proximate  cause  of  action,  and 
adjustment  or  special  arrangement  of  physical  agents  for  the 
cause  of  the  specialty  of  action,  I now  pass  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  next  general  proposition  of  the  present  article,  to 
see  how  far  the  facts  are  consistent  with  this  view. 

Fourth — The  nervous  system  is  an  arrangement  of  nature 
by  which  oxydation  in  the  muscular  tissue  is  placed  under  the 
control  of  certain  conditions,  and  hence,  by  which  muscular 
action  is  placed  under  the  control  of  these  conditions. 

We  have  seen  that  the  antecedent  to  muscular  power  is 
connected  with  the  muscles  themselves,  and  that  when  this 
antecedent  proximate  cause  exists,  definite  action  is  necessi- 
tated in  consequence  of  the  special  physical  arrangement. 
Also,  that  ‘ irritability’  or  ‘ motility’  is  not  a power , but  a pas- 
sive quality;  and  that  all  theories  based  upon  the  idea  of  ex- 
citing or  stimulating  this  passive  quality  into  ‘ active  opera- 
tion’ through  the  nervous  system,  or  mechanical,  or  other 
agency,  is  based  upon  an  absurdity.  Now,  if  the  proximate 
cause  of  muscular  contraction  is  the  chemical  change  between 
the  fluids  and  the  muscular  tissue  itself,  how  is  this  chemical 
action  regulated  so  that  contraction  may  occur  only  as  occa- 


12  — 


sion  calls  for  it?  I only  propose  answering  this  question 
in  a general  manner,  as  our  knowledge  at  present  of  the  ner- 
vous system  will  not  justify  anything  more.  As  I am  now 
considering  the  phenomena  of  muscular  action  in  reference  to 
the  views  advocated  in  the  previous  articles,  the  explanations 
here  offered  will  be  appreciated  more  according  to  the  stand- 
point from  which  they  are  viewed,  than  to  the  direct  argu- 
ments by  which  they  are  attempted  to  be  sustained.  If  from 
the  stand-point  which  you  occupy,  you  see  nothing  absurd  in 
all  the  explanations  where  the  object  is  to  be  accounted  for 
the  excitement  or  stimulation  of  the  muscular  irritability,  the 
explanations  here  attempted,  where  the  object  is  rather  to  ac- 
count for  the  regulation  of  chemical  change  in  the  muscle, 
will  have  but  little  force. 

As  soon  as  the  phenomena  of  electricity  began  to  receive  at- 
tention, the  identity  of  “ nervous  influence”  and  electricity 
began  to  be  believed.  I will  pass  over  all  those  relations  and 
corresponding  phenomena  upon  which  this  belief  was  founded, 
as  they  can  be  read  elsewhere.  Neither  will  I refer  here  to 
those  experiments  which  seemed  to  confirm,  but  only  to  those 
which  have  been  thought  sufficient  to  disprove  this  identity. 
In  the  consideration  of  these,  I hope  to  present  clearly  what 
I consider  the  respective  relations  of  the  muscular  and  ner- 
vous systems  to  muscular  action. 

All  phenomena  are  seen  according  to  the  relation  of  ideas 
which  pre-occupy  the  mind.  Let  it  be  remembered  here,  that 
all  the  observations  and  experiments  bearing  upon  the  sub- 
ject now  under  consideration,  have  been  made  upon  the  pre- 
conceived notion,  that  when  muscular  action  follows  an  act 
of  volition,  some  “ influence”  is  sent  from  the  nervous  centres 
to  the  muscle.  As  in  the  early  history  of  Astronomy,  many 
valuable  observations  were  made  with  the  pre-conceived  no- 
tion that  the  earth  was  fixed,  and  that  the  apparent  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  were  real ; so,  many  valuable  facts 
have  been  gathered  in  regard  to  the  function  of  the  nervous 
system  with  this  pre-conceived  notion  of  the  transmission  of 
an  “ agency”  or  “ influence”  from  the  nervous  centres.  It  is 
hard,  and  indeed  impossible,  suddenly  to  change  the  relation 
of  our  ideas;  and  hence,  every  conception  which  requires  to 


— 13  — 


be  viewed  from  a stand-point  different  from  what  we  are  ac- 
customed, will  be  met  with  just  such  objections  as  met  the 
Copernican  theory, — “ if  the  earth  turn  upside  down,  every 
thing  on  its  surface  would  fall  off.”  The  present  is  emphati- 
cally an  age  of  observation  and  experiment ; but  it  seems  to 
be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  results  thus  obtained  are  always 
shaped  and  colored  according  to  the  ideas  pre-occupying  the 
mind.  Errors,  now  known,  obtained  so  long  because  it  was 
not  suspected  but  that  the  color  and  shape  derived  from  the 
mind  were  real  and  objective.  All  men  theorize,  and  none 
more  dangerously  and  erroneously  than  those  who  do  not 
know  it, — calling  themselves  “ Positive  Philosophers .”  Does 
not  observation  prove  that  the  earth  is  fixed,  and  that  we  are 
on  the  upper  surface,  while  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  revolve 
around  us?  Do  not  observation  and  experiment  prove,  that 
an  impression  made  upon  the  fauces  is  communicated  to  the 
medulla  oblongata  and  there  reflected  to  the  muscles  of  deglu- 
tition ? Do  not  experiments  prove  that  the  “ afferent”  nerves 
conduct  the  “ nervous  influence”  to  the  nervous  centres,  and 
that  by  these  centres  it  is  reflected  to  other  parts  through  the 
“ efferent"  nerves?  Does  not  the  paralysis  following  the  divi- 
sion of  the  motor  nerves  show  that  the  centres  cannot  longer 
transmit  their  “ influence”  as  in  health  ? All  this  is  the  con- 
ception of  those  Philosophers  who  call  themselves  “ Positive ,” 
and  who  imagine  themselves  free  from  hypothesis.  But  this 
view  of  the  modus  operaadi  of  the  nervous  system  is  by  no 
means  established  beyond  question.  Think  of  that  1 It  is 
only  taken  for  granted,  without  proof.  It  is  hypothesis,  per- 
haps fiction.  It  may  be  that  muscular  action  is  consequent 
upon  oxydation  of  the  muscle  itself,  and  that  this  oxydation  is 
only  regulated  through  the  nervous  system.  Until  this  view 
is  at  least  shown  improbable,  the  other  should  not  be  taken 
as  absolutely  true,  as  has  been  done  for  the  foundation  of  ex- 
periments. If  this  view  be  true  in  nature,  the  question  in  re- 
gard to  muscular  “ irritability ” and  the  nervous  influence,  as 
the  “ cause”  or  as  “one  of  the  stimuli' ’ to  call  it  into  opera- 
tion, is  entirely  done  away  with;  as  also  the  question  of  iden- 
tity of  the  “ nervous  influence”  and  electricity.  If  the  ner- 
vous system,  in  relation  to  muscular  action,  is  only  an  arrange- 


— 14  — 


ment  through  which  oxydation  of  the  muscle  is  controlled  ac- 
cording to  conditions,  no  more  “ influence”  is  sent  down  from 
the  nervous  centres  to  “ stimulate”  muscular  irritability  than  is 
sent  down  from  the  poles  of  a battery  to  stimulate  the  oxyda- 
tion of  zinc;  and  nervous  influence  and  electricity  are  no 
more  identical  than  the  wire  injluence  of  a galvanic  battery  is 
identical  with  electricity.  But  the  oxydation  in  a galvanic 
battery  may  be  controlled  through  the  copper  wires,  and  so 
muscular  action  is  controlled  through  the  nervous  system. 
This  view  of  the  subject  seems  to  remove  many  difficulties,  and 
is  consistent  with  principles  and  phenomena  which  are  incom- 
patible, as  we  have  seen,  with  other  theories.  It  seems  to  me, 
that  the  whole  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  nervous 
influence  is  due  to  this  notion  or  fancy  that  somewhat,  origi- 
nating in  the  nervous  centres  and  peripheral  expansion  of  the 
sensory  nerves,  is  transmitted  thence  by  the  nerve  trunks  to 
excite  parts  to  which  they  are  distributed. 

The  manner  in  which  certain  experiments,  which  we  will  now 
consider,  are  interpreted  as  proof  that  the  “ nervous  influence” 
and  electricity  are  not  identical,  illustrates  the  power  of  that 
assumption  over  the  mind.  In  fact,  all  the  experiments  upon 
the  nervous  system  have  been  made  from  that  point  of  view. 
Now  these  experiments  prove  this,  that  the  scientific  world 
assumes  that  some  agent  or  “ influence”  is  sent  down  from 
the  nervous  centres  to  the  muscles,  in  muscular  action.  I 
wish  to  show  that  this  is  a false  assumption,  and  that  there  is 
reason  to  consider  the  relation  between  the  nerve  trunks  and 
muscular  action,  the  same  as  the  relation  between  the  wires 
of  a battery  and  galvanic  action.  All  the  phenomena  seem 
to  indicate  this  view  of  the  subject,  while  those  now  about 
to  be  considered  may  betaken  as  instantise  crucis.  If  oxyda- 
tion of  the  muscle  be  the  antecedent  upon  which  the  motor 
power  of  the  muscle  depends,  it  is  apparent  that  ail  conditions 
which  promote  muscular  action  must  be  conditions  to  pro- 
mote oxydation. 

First — “Prof.  Matteaucci,  having  experimented  upon  the 
very  large  crural  nerve  of  a horse,  which  was  caused  by 
stimulating  (!)  its  roots,  to  throw  the  muscles  of  the  leg  into 
violent  contraction,  nevertheless  found  that,  although  he  used 


— 15  — 


instruments  of  such  delicacy  as  to  be  capable  of  detecting  an 
infinitesimally  small  disturbance  of  the  electric  equilibrium, 
no  such  disturbance  was  evident.”  From  such  experiments 
as  these,  it  is  said  that  “ all  attempts  to  prove  the  existence 
of  an  electric  current  in  a nervous  trunk  that  is  actively  en- 
gaged in  conveying  motor  influence  ( ! ) have  completely  failed 
though  made  with  the  greatest  precaution  and  hence  the 
conclusion.  Kow  these  experiments  of  Prof.  Matteaucci  are 
made  upon  an  assumption  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  elec- 
tricity. The  fact  is  well  known  that  a current  of  electricity 
passing  along  a conductor,  may  easily  be  detected  ; but  the 
fact  is  equally  well  known,  that  if  the  conductor  be  bent  upon 
itself  so  that  the  current  passes  in  opposite  directions  at  the 
same  time,  the  equilibrium  is  restored,  so  that  there  is  no 
means  in  our  power  of  detecting  such  a current,  how  power- 
ful soever  it  may  be.  According  to  the  laws  of  galvanic  elec- 
tricity there  must  be  a continuous  circuit,  and  if  “by  stimu- 
lating the  roots”  of  the  crural  nerve,  an  electric  current  is 
11  sent  down”  to  the  muscles,  there  must  be  an  equal  current 
sent  back  to  the  point  of  “ stimulation .”  But  we  have  no  rea- 
son to  believe  that  electricity  is  developed  at  the  point  of 
“stimulation;”  we  rather  have  reason  to  believe  that  the 
means  employed  were  a condition  to  the  oxydation  of  the 
muscles,  and  that  by  means  of  the  fibres  and  stimulus  used 
there  was  a continuous  circuit  of  electricity  in  the  crural  nerve 
trunk.  If  the  agency  of  the  nervous  system  in  regard  to  mus- 
cular action  is  merely  to  place  the  oxydation  of  the  muscles, 
and  consequent  evolution  of  electricity,  under  certain  condi- 
tions, it  would  be  expected  that  the  experiment  of  Matteaucci 
would  fail  to  detect  the  current,  how  powerful  soever  it 
might  be. 

Second — “ If  a small  piece  of  a nervous  trunk  be  cut  out, 
and  be  replaced  by  an  electric  conductor,  electricity  will  still 
pass  along  the  nerve;  but  no  nervous  force,  excited  by  stimulus 
above  the  section,  will  be  propagated  through  the  conductor  to 
parts  below.”  Here,  again,  is  the  absurd  idea  of  exciting 
nerve  force  by  a stimulus.  The  objections  to  the  conclusion 


*•  Carpenter. 


— 16  — 


from  this  experiment  are  the  same  as  to  the  first.  The  whole 
weight  of  this  rests  upon  the  absurd  hypothesis,  that  nervous 
force  is  excited  by  a stimulus  above  the  section,  and  propagated 
through  the  nerves  to  parts  below.  If  the  conductor  placed 
in  the  section  united  the  proper  conducting  portion  of  the 
nerve  fibres,  oxydation  and  contraction  of  the  muscle  would 
result  in  consequence  of  this  alone,  and  it  would  itself  be  con- 
sidered a “stimulus;”  if  it  does  not  so  unite  the  nerves,  no 
mechanical  impression  above  could  induce  the  effect.  But 
this  conductor  placed  in  the  section  so  connects  with  the  cel- 
lular tissue,  surrounding  fluids,  &c.,  as  to  conduct  electricity 
externally  applied. 

As  all  the  objections  against  the  identity  of  “ nerve  force” 
and  electricity  contain  the  same  fallacies,  we  need  not  dwell 
upon  them  more,  since  it  will  be  apparent  already  that  these 
objections  do  not  apply  to  the  theory,  that  muscular  motor 
force  is  electricity,  and  is  evolved  in  the  oxydation  of  the  mus- 
cle. Upon  this  theory,  it  would  be  expected,  too,  that  “me- 
chanical and  chemical  stimulation ” would  occasion  muscular 
action.  Mechanical  impressions  will  induce  the  contraction 
of  muscles ; so  the  circuit  of  a galvanic  battery  is  completed 
by  mechanical  impressions.  If  the  conductors,  for  instance, 
terminate  within  a short  distance  of  each  other,  the  circuit 
might  be  completed  by  the  point  of  a scalpel ; and  thus,  to  us, 
the  phraseology  of  physiologists,  the  peculiar  wire  influence 
or  agency  excited  by  the  point  of  a scalpel,  is  transmitted  to 
the  “ parts  below,”  to  produce  or  excite  galvanic  battery  ac- 
tion ; and,  as  the  powrer  which  resisted  chemical  action  in  the 
battery  is  thus  metamorphosed  into  gross  motion,  oxydation 
of  the  zinc  results  as  a necessary  consequence ! The  nervous 
agency  and  electricity  are,  therefore,  not  identical ; but  the 
agency  of  the  nervous  system  is  to  place  the  oxydation  of  the 
muscles,  and  consequent  muscular  action,  under  the  influence 
and  control  of  certain  internal  and  external  conditions.  We 
will  now  consider  these  conditions  as  illustrated  in  the  pheno- 
mena of  muscular  action.  Muscular  action,  depending  upon 
oxydation,  may  be  regulated  by  two  classes  of  conditions,  viz  : 
those  connected  with  the  nervous  system,  and  those  connected 
with  the  oxydizing  fluid.  One  or  the  other,  or  both  of  these 


— 17  — 

classes  of  condition,  is  adopted  in  any  particular  case  accord- 
ing to  the  kind  of  action  required.  In  reflex  and  voluntary 
action,  the  oxydation  is  regulated  through  the  nervous  sys- 
tem; in  the  rhythmical  action  of  the  heart,  it  is  regulated  by 
the  oxydizing  fluid  in  a great  measure. 

First — Ofu  Reflex  Action .” — Dr.  Carpenter  expresses  the  re- 
ceived views  of  the  modus  operandi  of  “ reflex  action”  in  the 
following  words  : “By  contact,  pressure,  or  some  other  form 
of  mechanical  agency,  an  impression  is  made  upon  the  peri- 
pheral extremities  of  the  afferent  nerves  ; and  this  impression, 
or  the  change  induced  by  it  in  the  condition  of  the  nerve  fibre, 
is  transmitted  by  the  nerve  trunk  to  the  central  ganglion.  In 
this  ganglion,  the  influence  transmitted  by  the  afferent  trunk 
excites  a re-active  change ; the  occurrence  of  which  is  indica- 
ted by  the  transmission,  along  the  efferent  nerves,  of  an  influ- 
ence, which,  being  distributed  to  the  muscular  substance,  ex- 
cites it  to  contraction.” 

The  above  quotation  shows  most  beautifully  the  present 
mode  of  substituting  words  for  ideas,  in  explaining  the  func- 
tion of  the  nervous  system  in  relation  to  muscular  action. 
Now,  further  than  the  fact  that  through  the  “ afferent”  and 
“ efferent”  nerves,  and  the  ganglion,  the  “ contact,  pressure, 
or  some  other  mechanical  agency”  is  a condition  to  muscular 
contraction,  this  is  but  the  flight  of  a highly  wrought  imagi- 
nation. How  is  it  known,  that  the  “ impression,  or  rather 
the  change  induced  by  it  in  the  condition  of  the  nerve  fibre, 
is  transmitted  by  the  nerve  trunk  to  the  central  ganglion  j” 
and  how  is  it  known,  that  “in  this  ganglion  the  influence 
transmitted  by  the  afferent  trunk  excites  a re-active  change;” 
and  how  is  it  known,  that  an  influence  is  transmitted  “ along 
the  efferent  nerves,  which,  being  distributed  to  the  muscular 
substance,  excites  it  to  contraction ?”  If  \hefact  that  “ contact, 
pressure,  or  some  other  form  of  mechanical  agency  upon  the 
peripheral  extremities  of  the  afferent  nerves,”  is  followed  by 
muscular  contraction,  proves  all  this,  then  the  fact  that  pres- 
sure, contact,  or  some  other  form  of  mechanical  agency  upon 
the  extremities  of  the  conductors  of  a galvanic  battery,  is 
followed  by  chemical  action  in  the  battery  and  electric  phe- 
nomena, proves  that  this  “ impression,”  or  rather  the  change 
8 


— 18  — 


induced  by  it  in  the  condition  of  the  “ conductors,”  is  trans- 
mitted by  the  “ conductors”  to  the  battery,  and  there  excites 
chemical  action  and  electric  phenomena;  or  rather,  according 
to  the  hypothesis  we  have  been  considering,  excites  electric 
phenomena,  and  chemical  action  results  in  consequence.  I 
cannot  but  believe  that  the  facts  are  much  more  naturally  and 
satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  the  view  here  taken  of  the  re- 
spective functions  of  the  muscular  and  nervous  tissues,  upon 
principles  established  and  recognized  apart  from  these  phe- 
nomena of  the  animal  economy.  The  “ contact,  pressure,  or 
some  other  form  of  mechanical  agency,”  causes  a physical 
change  in  the  extremities  of  the  “afferent”  nerves,  which 
physical  change  is  a condition  through  the  nerve  conductors 
of  a corresponding  change  in  the  ganglion,  just  as  by  “ con- 
tact, pressure,  or  some  other  form  of  mechanical  agency,”  a 
physical  change  is  produced  in  the  extremities  of  the  wire 
conductors  of  a galvanic  battery,  and  is  thus  a condition  of 
action  in  the  battery.  As  the  action  in  the  galvanic  battery 
may  by  special  adjustment  as  in  the  electric  telegraph,  unite  the 
poles  of  a second  battery,  so  the  action  in  the  central  ganglion 
causes  a physical  change  in  the  extremities  of  the  “ efferent” 
nerves,  which  change  is  a condition  to  the  oxydation  and  con- 
sequent contraction  of  muscles.  As  intimated  before,  I only 
aim  at  general  principles  here;  a more  exact  knowledge  of 
the  minute  arrangement  of  the  nervous  system  and  of  the 
conditions  of  electric  phenomena  is  required  before  we  can 
specify  with  exactness  the  peculiar  physical  change  in  the 
ganglia  and  extremities  of  nerves.  These  general  piinciples 
follow  directly  from  the  previous  arguments.  When  an  im- 
pression is  made  upon  the  extremities  of  the  “ afferent”  nerves, 
muscular  action  is  necessitated  through  the  nervous  connec- 
tion ; this  necessity  proves  adjustment ; but  adjustment  is  not 
power,  yet  through  adjustment  action  is  modified.  The  ad- 
justment in  the  automatic  portion  of  the  nervous  system,  is 
for  the  regulation  of  the  oxydation  of  the  muscle  according  to 
circumstances.  In  deglutition,  the  substance  to  be  swallowed, 
pressing  upon  the  nervous  expansion  in  the  fauces,  causes  such 
a change,  that  through  the  “ afferent”  nerve  conductors,  it  is 
a condition  of  a change  in  the  medulla  oblongata,  without 


— 19  — 


any  influence,  agent,  or  impression  being  sent  up ; this  change 
in  the  medulla,  through  the  efferent  nerves  is  a condition  to 
the  oxydation  of  the  muscles  and  the  consequent  act  of  deglu- 
tition. According  to  this  view,  we  have,  both  in  the  “ affer- 
ent” and  “efferent”  nerve  trunks,  counter  currents;  conse- 
qently,  such  experiments  as  made  by  Prof.  Matteaucci  upon 
the  crural  nerve  of  the  horse,  would  necessarily  fail  to  detect 
the  presence  of  electricity.  And  the  quantity  of  electricity 
conducted  even  by  the  “ efferent”  nerves  may  be  extremely 
small ; for,  as  the  manner  in  which  these  terminate  is  not  yet 
definitely  known,  they  may  be  merely  instrumental  in  pro- 
ducing a change  in  a third  set  of  conductors  terminating  in 
more  immediate  connection  with  the  muscles  themselves. 

Second — Of  Voluntary  Action. — The  points  at  issue  in  this 
article  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  relation  of  Mind  and  Mat- 
ter, nor  yet  with  the  exact  physical  change  in  the  nervous 
centres  antecedent  to  muscular  action.  VVe  only  aim  at  gen- 
eral principles  as  a point  from  which  to  view  the  phenomena. 
The  mind  wills  results,  and  not  the  action  of  special  muscles. 
The  mind  may  not  know  that  muscles  exist,  much  less  that 
nerves  pass  from  the  muscles  to  the  nervous  centres,  and  much 
less  still,  the  origin  of  a special  nerve  fibre  in  the  nerve  cen- 
tre; and  yet  the  action  is  determined  as  definitely  as  if  all  this 
were  known.  Hence,  the  special  action  following  upon  the 
Will  is  necessitated,  and  consequent^,  the  relation  between 
the  Will  and  muscular  action  depends  upon  adjustment.  This 
view  is  conclusive,  whatever  may  be  your  notion  of  nervous 
agency.  If  the  Will  “ sends  doivn”  an  “influence,”  the  “in- 
fluence” is  determined  by  adjustment  to  the  axis-cylinder  of  one 
fibre  rather  than  another.  The  mind  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  connection  between  the  will  and  the  result.  Now,  if  the 
motor  nerves  be  divided  and  a mechanical  impression  be  made 
upon  the  extremity  towards  the  muscles,  contraction  results; 
hence,  in  connection  with  the  will  some  change  takes  place 
in  the  nervous  centres  which  may  be  substantiated  by  this 
mechanical  impression.  Hence  the  arguments  and  views  ad- 
vanced in  regard  to  “reflex”  action,  apply  here.  Adjustment 
is  not  power.  The  changes  in  the  nervous  centres  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Will,  as  with  the  mechanical  impression,  only 


— 20  — 


determines  the  oxydation  of  the  muscle  and  the  development 
of  power.  The  action  of  the  will,  as  of  every  mental  action,  is 
accompanied  with  molicular  change;  hence,  we  can  under- 
stand how  the  will  may  be  a condition  to  muscular  action, 
as  well  as  how  the  substance  in  the  fauces,  or  the  point  of  a 
scalpel,  is  a condition  to  muscular  action. 

Third — Muscular  Action  regidated  more  especially  by  the  oxy- 
dizing  Jluid. — If  muscular  action  depends  upon  oxydation, 
whatever  would  modify  oxydation  would  modify  the  conse- 
quent action.  While  the  classes  of  actions  just  considered 
are  regulated  through  the  nervous  system,  conductors,  or  poles, 
that  class  now  about  to  be  examined  seems  to  be  regulated  by 
modifications  in  the  blood.  I will  take  the  rhythmical  move- 
ments of  the  heart  as  a type  of  this  class.  Not  that  I would 
contend  that  “reflex  action”  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ac- 
tions of  the  heart,  more  than  I would  that  the  oxydizing  fluid 
has  nothing  to  do  with  “reflex”  and  “ voluntary”  action,  but 
only  that  the  rhythmical  movements  are  otherwise  regulated. 
The  heart,  in  contracting,  forces  the  blood  not  only  from  its 
cavities,  but  from  its  substance  also — each  fibre  discharges  it- 
self by  its  own  action.  As  the  heart  thus  discharges  itself, 
the  oxydation  and  consequent  contraction  cease,  and  dilata- 
tion follows  from  the  power  which  had  been  overcome  in  the 
contraction.  Upon  the  dilatation,  not  only  are  the  cavities 
filled  again,  but  each  fibre  is  again  charged  with  blood,  and 
thus  the  rhythmical  movements  continue  in  beautiful  order  ! 
How  simple,  and  yet  how  beautiful  is  this  arrangement. 
Even  the  fibres  of  the  voluntary  muscles  discharge  themselves 
to  some  extent  in  contracting,  but  other  portions  contract 
alternately  to  compensate.  The  object  of  the  contractions  of 
the  heart  is  evidently  to  force  the  blood  from  its  cavities  ; but 
the  very  action  which  accomplishes  this  object,  removes  the 
condition  of  the  evolution  of  the  contractile  force;  and  while 
the  cavities  are  again  being  filled,  this  condition  is  again  re- 
stored by  the  contraction  of  the  aorta  forcing  blood  into  the 
substance  of  the  heart.  Thus  the  actions  of  the  heart  are 
regulated  by  the  conditions  of  the  blood,  and  accord  with  the 
objects  to  be  accomplished.  I would  direct  attention  here  to 
the  position  of  the  orifices  of  the  coronary  arteries.  They  are 


— 21  — 


So  situated  in  the  aortic  sinuses  that  blood  cannot  be  forced 
into  them  during  the  systole  of  the  ventricles,  but  during  the 
diastole  by  the  contraction  of  the  aorta.  According  to  the 
experiments  of  Dr.  J.  Reid,  the  rhythmical  movements  con- 
tinue in  vacuo;  but  this  is  negatived  by  the  experiments  of 
Drs.  Mitchell  and  Bache,  of  Philadelphia  ; and  it  seems  clearly 
established,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  action  of  a muscle  is 
in  proportion  to  its  oxydation,  that  the  presence  of  oxygen,  or 
of  some  agent  capable  of  producing  molicular  change,  is  essen- 
tial to  muscular  action.  No  one  would  contend  that  a per- 
fectly dry  muscular  fibre  would  undergo  rhythmical  move- 
ments; when  fibres  separated  from  the  body  undergo  such 
actions,  they  may  be  charged  with  the  fluid  which  gives  them 
moisture,  of  which  it  is  discharged  by  the  contraction,  and 
again  charged  with  during  relaxation. 

I conclude  that  the  idea  of  irritability,  excitability , or  motil- 
ity, as  a power  inherent  in  the  muscular  tissue,  or  as  derived 
from  the  nervous  system,  is  a fiction;  that  the  idea  that  any 
physical  power  can  be  dormant  or  inactive,  and  can  be  stimu- 
lated or  excited  by  any  agency  whatever,  is  an  illusion;  that 
the  idea  that  an  “ impression,  agency  or  influence,”  is  trans- 
mitted from  the  nervous  centres  to  the  muscles  to  excite  them, 
is  a false  point  of  view  from  which  the  phenomena  have  been 
observed.  I conclude  that  oxydation  of  the  muscular  tissue 
is  the  source  of  muscular  power,  and  that  all  conditions  which 
regulate  muscular  action  are  conditions  to  regulate  this  oxy- 
dation ; that  when  permanent  contraction  is  caused  by  elec- 
tricity, the  oxydation  of  the  muscle  is  substituted  by  the  oxy- 
dation of  zinc.  I conclude,  that  upon  the  supposition  that 
oxydation  is  the  source  of  muscular  power,  the  phenomena  of 
muscular  action  may  be  explained  as  far  as  our  present  know- 
ledge of  the  laws  of  physical  agents  and  of  the  minute  struc- 
ture or  arrangement  of  the  muscular  and  nervous  tissues  will 
permit ; that  it  is  not  philosophic  to  assume  peculiar  forces  and 
agencies  till  our  knowledge  of  these  laws  and  of  the  special 
adjustments  in  the  organism  justifies  such  an  assumption  ; that 
in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  such  assumptions  are 
even  as  presumptuous  as  unphilosophic, — presumptuous, 
because  based  upon  an  assumed  knowledge  which  we  do  not 


22  — 


nearly  possess.  I conclude,  that  the  burden  of  proof  is 
thrown  upon  those  who  contend  that  the  phenomena  of  mus- 
cular action,  nervous  “ influence,”  and  of  life  in  general,  are 
incompatible  with  ordinary  physical  principles. 

The  views  just  advanced  in  regard  to  the  agency  of  the 
nervous  system  in  “ reflex”  and  “ voluntary”  action,  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  nerves  of  special  sense.  The  external  con- 
dition, whatever  it  may  be,  causes  a change  in  the  peripheral 
expansion  of  the  nerve,  in  consequence  of  which  no  impres- 
sion or  influence  is  sent  up  to  the  brain,  but  an  action  takes 
place  in  the  brain  corresponding  to  the  external  change. 
How  perception  is  connected  with  this  change  of  the  brain, 
must  remain  unknown  till  we  know  more  of  the  relation  of 
mind  and  matter;  but  the  fact  seems  established,  that  the 
mental  actions  and  molicular  change  in  the  brain  are  directly 
proportional.  This  view  of  the  function  of  the  nerves  of  spe- 
cial sense,  has  the  same  foundation  as  that  of  the  “afferent” 
and  “efferent”  nerves  given  above. 

The  re  seems  to  be  a gradual  approach  among  physiolog:sts 
to  the  views  contained  in  this  article.  It  is  now  a fixed  doc- 
trine, that  muscular  disintegration  is  in  proportion  to  muscu- 
lar action,  but  it  has  not  been  considered  that  muscular  power 
is  consequent  upon  this  disintegration  or  oxvdation.  How- 
ever, I find  in  Prof.  Di  aper’s  new  work  on  Physiology,  pub- 
lished this  year,  the  following  remark  upon  this  subject  : 
“ So  far  from  there  being  any  thing  mysterious  or  incompre- 
hensible about  it,”  (the  cause  of  muscular  action,)  “ as  some 
writers  insist,  we  probably  shall  not  be  very  far  from  the  truth, 
if  we  assert,  that  muscular  contraction  is  the  necessary  result 
of  muscular  disintegration  ; and  without  here  considering  the 
various  ways  by  which  that  muscular  disintegration  may  be 
brought  about,  such  is  the  doctrine  that  I now  present.”  If 
this  is  true,  the  conditions  of  muscular  action  must  be  condi- 
tions of  muscular  disintegration  ; but  Dr.  Draper  has  not  ap- 
plied this  to  the  agency  of  ihe  nervous  system  and  the  blood 
in  regulating  muscular  action.  Dr.  Brown-Sequard,  in  1853, 
proposed  the  theory,  that  cabonic  acid  in  the  blood  is  the  ex- 
citant of  the  muscular  contractility  of  the  heart,  and  he  ex- 
plains the  rhythmical  movements  by  the  doctrine  that  the 


— 23  — 

contraction  of  the  heart  forces  the  excitant  from  the  small 
blood-vessels  and  capillaries,  and  that  during  dilatation  they 
become  filled  again.  Now,  if  you  discard  this  fancy  doctrine  of 
exciting  muscular  irritability  by  any  stimulant  whatever, 
and  substitute  what  is  proposed  by  Dr.  Draper,  “that  muscu- 
lar contraction  is  the  necessary  result  of  muscular  disintegra- 
tion,” and  extend  the  idea  of  the  heart,  by  its  own  contrac- 
tion forcing  the  blood  from  the  blood-vessels,  to  the  muscular 
fibre  itself,  you  have  the  theory  I propose  respecting  the 
rhythmical  movements  of  the  heart.  It  may  be  proper 
to  state  here  that  I published  the  views  contained  in  this 
article  in  a pamphlet  in  1851,  so  that  I only  mention 
the  views  of  Drs.  Draper  and  Brown-Sequard  to  show 
that  the  views  that  I published  in  1851,  and  that  are  con- 
tained in  this  article,  are  being  approached  by  physiologists. 
It  may  be  proper  to  remark  too,  incidentally,  that  a temporary 
increase  of  the  heart’s  action  following  an  increase  of  carbonic 
acid  in  the  blood,  does  not  prove  that  the  carbonic  acid  is  a 
“ stimulant'1'1  to  the  heart’s  “irritability,”  as  supposed  by  Dr. 
Sequard,  but  rather  confirms  the  views  contained  in  this  arti- 
cle. An  accumulation  of  carbonic  acid  in  the  blood  would 
proportionally  retard  the  capillary  circulation  and  cause  a dis- 
tension of  the  arteries  with  blood,  and  hence  the  heart  would 
be  charged  with  more  blood  during  dilatation,  and  the  in- 
creased action  would  be  in  consequence  of  this,  and  not  the 
direct  stimulating  effect  of  carbonic  acid. 

In  the  next  article,  we  will  consider  the  phenomena  of  dis- 
ease in  reference  to  the  same  position,  that  oxydation  or  dis- 
integration is  the  cause  of  action,  and  that  adjustment  is  the 
cause  of  speciality  of  action  in  living  organisms. 


■ 


• > 

4 

1 - i 

1 r.  L 

_.i«f  ■ &v:iV5l-  > ; j 1 ■ i 

■ iir.,  hi"-; 

' .'::V  ' , V l T.  ' W 

, -U.:  . -.  ■•■: 

■■  ' r 1 I i . ' 

■ ■ ' ■ ' ■ r " H ; ’ ■ ' 

“ • : i * ..  • 

* 


